Wednesday, May 30, 2018

"VR and AR hardware investment isn't about 3D," High Fidelity/Second Life founder Philip Rosedale recently argued, "it is the battle for the next screen. We've reached the diffraction limit for the human eye and a desktop or handheld device and now must move to HMDs." In other words, Philip is arguing that we'll adopt VR/AR headsets because graphics on our existing devices (and that includes the human eye) have reached their technical limit, and only HMDs can move us past that.

"Why do you think diffraction limit of screens will make people want to adopt HMDs?" I asked him. "If I'm reading this chart right, most consumers don't set their desktop PCs to the highest possible resolution. So why would they want even more from an HMD?"

"The 'diffraction limit' means that in a given degree (imagine a compass heading) around you, you are only able to see so many pixels - about 60. It doesn't matter how far away from your eye those pixels are located, you can't see them any better. In other words, if your 4K TV is far enough away from your eyes that it's pixels per degree is less than 60, you are wasting money. See what I mean?

"So, once you have the number of pixels you have on an iPhone (actually anything newer than an iPhone 4), the only thing you can do is make the iPhone bigger (like that ridiculous iPhone6S+). But of course you can't make these things bigger - like a newspaper or something because they would get too heavy and bulky (except that cool-as-shit foldable screen in Westworld but that's sci-fi). The way that we have to go next is somehow make it so that wherever you look you see a mega-screen:

VR and AR hardware investment isn't about 3D - it is the battle for the next screen. We've reached the diffraction limit for the human eye and a desktop or handheld device and now must move to HMDs. https://t.co/UF6tZAyRN6

If the world were one gigantic cylindrical monitor that you were standing inside, you can only make out 360 degrees X 60 pixels-per-degree = 21,600 pixels (horizontally speaking, and like half that vertically, so about 10.000 pixels). This means that, to your brain, reality is something like 20,000 x 10,000 pixels = about a 200 MegaPixel monitor.

So the only way to get more 'screen' in front of people is to wrap the screen around your head so it covers more pixels (like sitting really close to a 4K monitor, although at some point you can't focus on the edges cause those screens mostly aren't curved). And this is exactly what an HMD does.

As you pointed out - most people can't comfortably 'see' 60 pixels per degree, and this is because their eyes don't actually focus well enough to hit the diffraction limit. Especially if you are older and holding something closer than at arms length. And this is good news for the industry, because for this and one other technical reason (called) 'temporal antialiasing', the practical limit is probably more like 40 pixels per degree - about the resolution of that new google HMD.

Wagner James Au: "What's the evidence people actually want more pixels? Marketwise, the 4K TV penetration rate is only 29% (even when you can now get a decent 4K screen for $250), and more notable, only 23% of consumers even want to watch TV on their TV -- the majority prefer watching on their laptops or mobile devices. I.E. Isn't it likely most people don't value better resolution, and so won't really care how great an HMD resolution is?"

Philip Rosedale: "Agree -- it's not the resolution, it's the number of screens. You have one screen on your desk in front of you right now, right? What if you could have one more screen floating in space next to that one where you could have more stuff, like Ops/IT guys often do? And if those screens didn't weigh anything and just magically showed up when you opened your laptop, how many of them would you have as your 'standard' configuration. A lot, right? The reason 4K's aren't selling is exactly what I am describing with the diffraction limit - they are too far away to see the extra detail."

So Philip is arguing that we'll move toward the possibility of replacing our many existing screens with wearable screens that are superior to all of them -- and even what the unassisted human eye is capable of seeing:

"The greatest initial promise of the HMD," as Philip Rosedale puts it, "is to give us a bunch of 2D screens on which we can do our work and messaging. Imagine your 'laptop' being just the keyboard on your desk. The screens are floating above it and to both sides of you. That works if you are wearing an HMD."

Ultimately the debate comes down to wanting what's technically optimal, versus what's easy, affordable, and convenient. My intuition is the market will always choose the latter -- though to Philip's point, it's possible that HMDs may eventually become all of those three things.

But this is something I see with other devs and people coming from the golden days of MMO's where people fully immersed for long hours with the latest hardware.

Some people just aren't coming to terms with the fact that those days are pretty much gone from the mainstream.

People in general just want their quick fix of information or communication and then to move on with whatever else they're doing. The technology has ceased to be something that you "do" for hours and hours on end and is now pretty much a convenience tool.

And current big screens do the job for watching shows and films. We've hit the limit of "good enough" for most users, I think, as you've suggested.

Consumers just aren't interested as much as companies try to convince them that they should be.